The Assembly of Experts; A Parliament That Does Not Oversee the Leader's Performance

As the fifth session of the fifth term of the Assembly of Experts on Leadership convenes, criticisms of this assembly have intensified. This assembly is composed of those deemed qualified jurists and is responsible for appointing the leader of the Islamic Republic and overseeing his activities. However, the spokesperson for the Assembly of Experts stated that the main focus of the recent meeting was to follow up on the Supreme Leader's demands regarding Iran's economic situation and to resolve livelihood issues. Critics argue that this matter has no relation to the main duties of this body. In this week's program, we raised the question of whether the Assembly of Experts reviews the leader's performance in the Islamic Republic or if the leader oversees this body. With the presence of Mohsen Kadivar, a professor of Islamic studies at Duke University in the United States, and Hassan Shariatmadari, a political activist and analyst in Germany. Mr. Kadivar, let's start the discussion with you. Generally, how would you evaluate the performance of the Assembly of Experts? Mohsen Kadivar: The Assembly of Experts is one of the components of the authoritarian electoral system of the Islamic Republic. Its shorter name is 'show democracy.' Therefore, the Assembly of Experts meets every six months, comments on issues that have no relation to their duties, but does not fulfill its legal responsibilities. Thus, it is like a puppet in a puppet show, saying that we exist; otherwise, nothing significant comes from this assembly, and they have performed so poorly that no special expectations remain from them. I believe the Assembly of Experts is one of the accomplices in the recent crises of the country and continues to act as before, with no significant changes. The main decisions of the Assembly of Experts are made outside of this assembly in the leader's office, communicated to this assembly by his agents, and they carry out the show aspect of it. Mr. Shariatmadari, I ask you the same question. Overall, how has the performance of the Assembly of Experts been so far? In addition to everything Mr. Kadivar said, which is completely correct, if this Assembly of Experts were functioning correctly and the leadership in Iran were under the control of the Assembly of Experts, this system would still be one where undemocratic authority is its main characteristic. A leader elected by the Assembly of Experts, even if under its control, symbolizes the discrimination of an ideological system that has nothing to do with democracy, and as mentioned, it is a show of a type of election that is, in fact, appointments. The Assembly of Experts is essentially an agent and a puppet of the leader, and both their method of selection or, in fact, their appointment is done by the Guardian Council, and after they enter the Assembly of Experts, they are beholden to the leader and essentially see themselves as dissolved in him, obedient to his commands. Of course, if they were fulfilling their duties, the legal powers of the leader would be somewhat balanced with his actual power, but that would not solve the issue. Mohsen Kadivar: 'The Assembly of Experts is one of the accomplices in the recent crises of the country. The main decisions of the Assembly of Experts are made outside of this assembly in the leader's office, communicated to this assembly by his agents, and they carry out the show aspect of it.' Mr. Kadivar spoke about the main duty of the Assembly of Experts and the oversight it should have over the leader's performance. Why does this assembly not fulfill its duty? Mehdi Karroubi also mentioned in a recent open letter that if the Assembly is to be the Assembly, it should publish a comprehensive report on its oversight of the leader and his subordinate institutions. When do you think this situation began, and why is oversight of the leader's performance not conducted by the Assembly of Experts? From day one. The Assembly of Experts has never fulfilled its oversight duty, neither during Mr. Khomeini's time nor during Mr. Khamenei's time. I have conducted deep research in this area and published and proven that even during Mr. Khomeini's time, they could not fulfill their oversight duty. Even to meet with Mr. Khomeini, the name of the oversight committee was changed so that he would give them an appointment under another title, and when they went, they discussed other issues. In other words, the leaders of the Islamic Republic consider oversight over themselves as beneath their dignity, both the founder and the current leader. There are documents and evidence, but sometimes people like Mr. Karroubi think that this issue arose in 1989 and forget that oversight duties of the Assembly were not carried out even in the first decade. You ask why they do not fulfill their oversight duty? Because they cannot. The main reason is their inability, as the members of the Assembly of Experts are not true representatives of the people. They are appointed by the leader himself through the Guardian Council. Therefore, as Mr. Shariatmadari also pointed out, they are beholden to the leader and, in terms of perspective, methodology, and livelihood, they are not independent. Many of them are representatives of the Supreme Leader in their regions. Now, how can we expect them to oversee the performance of the Supreme Leader? They think this performance is correct because it resembles their own. They do not understand the matter of governance; they neither have the knowledge nor the practical ability for it. Now, if an exception like Mr. Dashtgheib criticizes, he is practically removed from the Assembly. With the suspicious death of Mr. Rafsanjani in the pool, the others have also calculated their situation. This issue has become so widespread that a representative in the public session refers to it, and no one can deny it. It has indeed happened. Moreover, this part of Mr. Karroubi's letter is correct, but as I mentioned, he thinks it has recently happened. No, it seems this is not something new. The novelty of Mr. Karroubi's letter is that it was written inside the country, especially from within house arrest; otherwise, its content is not new. Mr. Shariatmadari, the letter of Mr. Karroubi was mentioned. How important and effective do you consider this letter? Its importance lies in the fact that Mr. Karroubi, who was actually one of the unquestionable supporters of the regime in the first decade and even supported it at times during Mr. Khamenei's leadership, has now reached a point where he considers Mr. Khamenei the main obstacle of the country. The content of this letter is that why have you left this person uncontrolled, who disrupts the country and is the greatest obstacle to the country's progress, putting it at risk of war, destruction, and famine? This aspect of the matter, although not explicitly stated, is clear as to why people like Mr. Karroubi have become exasperated and are pointing out the right address. Although he (Mr. Khamenei) is not the sole cause of this situation, and even with his removal, the Islamic Republic would not be a system that could bring Iran to safety. However, he (Ayatollah Khamenei) has become a character under which the Revolutionary Guards, corrupt forces within the system, and those who want the situation to continue as is find shelter, and if he is not there, their situation will become tougher. Therefore, Mr. Karroubi's address is correct, but his solution is wrong. He knows that the Assembly of Experts will do nothing and is essentially metaphorically pointing out the existence of such an obstacle. In my opinion, its significance lies in the fact that those who continue to beat the drum of unsuccessful reformism today at least point out an obstacle to the people, and they still do not express their words. Hassan Shariatmadari: 'The Assembly of Experts is essentially an agent and a puppet of the leader, and both their method of selection or, in fact, their appointment is done by the Guardian Council, and after they enter the Assembly of Experts, they are beholden to the leader and essentially see themselves as dissolved in him, obedient to his commands.' Mr. Kadivar, do you think that in the current situation, who is to blame? Mr. Karroubi wrote a letter and blamed Mr. Khamenei. Is he the only one who should be held accountable, or are there others like Mr. Karroubi, who was once in power and could have protested against this situation? The main issue now is not to find a culprit. The main issue is what to do to prevent the country from deteriorating further than it already is. Mr. Karroubi has pointed out important points and attributed the blame to Mr. Khamenei, thinking that if he were not there, these problems would not have arisen, and the country would have progressed correctly, as those 'Imam Line' individuals call it the 'golden era of Imam Khomeini.' The idea that Mr. Khamenei should step aside, I think, is not the main problem. The main problem is the system. That is, if the representatives of the Assembly, the people, and the elites come to the conclusion that the main cause of the problems that have arisen and the crises that some of them are showing as unsolvable is the system called the Islamic Republic, of which one component has been Mr. Khamenei since day one. There have been other components, and a more important part of this system has been Mr. Khomeini and his followers. The first step to healing is to recognize the pain. Mr. Karroubi's diagnosis has reached the point that the policies of the current leader are the cause of these crises. But if he broadens his perspective a bit and realizes that a crooked foundation was laid and this crookedness continued from Mr. Khamenei's time. Let me give a simple example. In Mr. Karroubi's letter, he compares the judiciary of that time with this time and also refers to the constitutional revision council. Now, I will briefly refer to both. Is the current judiciary worse than the judiciary during Mr. Khomeini's time? My answer, contrary to Mr. Karroubi, is negative. I do not think that with all the mistakes and misjudgments of Sadegh Larijani, the actions taken during this time, during Hashemi Shahroudi, Mohammad Yazdi, and others, if we compare these with the actions of the first decade and the exact names that Mr. Karroubi mentioned in his letter, I can say that the scale of actions in the first decade is unfortunately much heavier than that of the last three decades. This must be stated fairly. The judiciary of that time is not defensible at all. Just because Mr. Karroubi's friends and the members of the Imam Line were in power then does not mean that their performance, whether in 1987 or 1980 or other parts of that period, was correct. Regarding the second point, the constitutional revision council was fundamentally illegal. On what basis can the leader personally set aside 20 people alongside 5 elected ones? If we look at the pre-revolutionary constitutional period, there was a Senate and a National Assembly. Now three-quarters of it is appointed, including Mr. Khamenei himself, Rafsanjani, Karroubi, Mousavi Khoyini, and others, and five are elected by the Assembly. Neither during the period when Mr. Khomeini determined them could they fulfill their duties, nor after that period, even based on Mr. Khomeini's decree, was their work legal. Moreover, the axes that he had determined exceeded them when Mr. Khomeini passed away, and they could not find legal permission for themselves beyond that deadline. In an article I wrote on this subject, I showed all of this and proved that the resolutions of this council were contrary to the spirit of the republic and Islam and lacked legal legitimacy. Then, the details that Mr. Karroubi mentioned, for example, regarding the temporary leadership for a ten-year period, in fact, Hashemi Rafsanjani, alongside all his shortcomings, had one of his merits that he always defended this issue. The one who opposed this issue was Mr. Fadhil Lankarani, who, as the secretary of the Society of Teachers at that time, wrote a unilateral statement and signed it, saying how can the deputy of the Imam of the Time be a deputy for ten years and then not be a deputy? Then a suspicious vote was held, and this issue was changed, even though it had won. Mr. Karroubi does not mention Mr. Fadhil Lankarani's name because the permission he had was from him, and Mr. Lankarani is also considered an Imam Line figure. These must be analyzed, and the truth must be clarified. Regarding the absolute guardianship, when it is raised in that constitutional revision council, unfortunately, the performance of the left faction and the Imam Line is by no means better than that of the right faction. Both factions performed poorly, and if we were to open the issue, it would become clear that a few individuals from the left faction and the Imam Line who were in that constitutional revision council unfortunately did not perform defensibly at all. Unfortunately, Mr. Karroubi has overlooked these points and has not fully articulated the matter. Mr. Shariatmadari, what do you think? Do you think the problem is Mr. Khamenei himself, that is, the absolute guardianship of the jurist and the lifelong nature of his rule, or are there other problems as well? No, the house is ruined from the foundation. But within all these issues, the obstinacy and stubbornness of Mr. Khamenei, especially regarding his global and regional policies, and his inflexibility in accepting the rules of the civilized world and not being rebellious, is one of the main issues endangering the country. This should not be forgotten. It is true that even if the best person becomes the jurist leader, this backward system must not exist for Iran to become a modern country and have a system compatible with the modern civilization of the world. But his stubbornness and obstinacy are one of the determining factors of this decline, and his interference in all areas in which he has no expertise, such as the economy and increasing Iran's population. He says the population of Iran should reach 150 million. His comments about the environment and issues he knows nothing about are among the major problems we face today. This should also not be forgotten. Regarding Mr. Karroubi, we should say that if the oppression that has befallen him today were not there, he himself is one of those who should sit on the defendant's chair and answer for his performance alongside others. But today he is trapped, and it is not the time to divide responsibilities.